The REAL "r'n'r revolution"!!!
Scarlotti
clear to me...
The REAL r'n'r revolution was not (IMO) a rebellion against the
popular music of the early 50s.
It wasn't first and foremost about DANCING.
The 20s had the Charleston -- a wild, high energy, and (for its time)
very risque dance.
The 30s and early 40s had swing music and the Jitterbug. Same deal,
only more so.
By the mid-40s, the emphasis _in Mainstream music_ had shifted from
dance to crooning (a la Sinatra). And by the end of WWII (with its
dual specters of the Cold War and the Atom Bomb, when many people were
longing for a simpler, safer time, our music reflected it by
(re)turning to older musical styles...and dance styles.
There are not too many mainstream records from the late 40s/early 50s
that you can dance something on the level of the Jitterbug to.
In fact, some of the music wasn't even danceable at all.
I'm not implying that this was a good thing or a bad one (though I
greatly prefer listening to/singing along with music over dancing to
it).
In the early 50s, you could tango to KISS OF FIRE, or mambo to MAMBO
ITALIANO, or cha cha, bunny hop, waltz, etc., but you couldn't
jitterbug to any of it.
THAT, and that alone, is what the so-called "revolution" was rebelling
against. Kids wanted to burn off their excess energy (and cool their
raging teenage hormones) the same way that their parents and/or
grandparents did in the 20s and 30s.
And THAT is why r&b becomes an important influence on the development
of r'n'r.
R&b (especially the jump bands) was dance music. Wilder dance music
than anything since the heyday of the big bands. Maybe even wilder as
the lyrics were often of a sexual nature (although usually "coded" in
street slang).
The Penguins' version of EARTH ANGEL is better to slow dance to than
that of The Crew-Cuts (which, however, makes for better _listening_/is
more fun to sing along with).
As terrible a song as it is in terms of tune and lyrics, TUTTI FRUTTI
is better to do some jitterbug-styled dance to than COME ON-A MY
HOUSE.
That's all it was ever about. DANCING.
Sentimental, romantic, pop songs, novelty songs, and all other styles
of popular songs from the early 50s continued to chart throughout the
decade of the 1950s. And not just by the "old" (pre-rock era)
singers, but by the teen idols of the rock era themselves, rock era
groups like The Fleetwoods, rock era "make-out music king" Johnny
Mathis, and even by "rockers" like Elvis, Bobby Darin and Buddy Holly.
And this is only natural. After all, music serves other purposes than
merely providing a beat to throw one's body aroung to.
Song like TEDDY BEAR and GOOD LUCK CHARM are pop numbers with a fast
rhythmic beat that one can "rock" (increasingly, a more free-form
variation on jitterbugging) to.
In short: the "r'n'r revolution" was simply the reintegration of
frenetic dance rhythms into mainstream pop.
Thank you. Thank you very much.
Marc Wielage
> In short: the "r'n'r revolution" was simply the reintegration of
> frenetic dance rhythms into mainstream pop.
>--------------------------------snip----------------------------------<
How do you dance to Johnnie Ray's "Cry"? As far as I'm concerned, you can't.
That's another point for it not being a rock 'n' roll song.
--MFW
[remove the extra M above for email]
SHARX
|| On Jul 9, 2004, Scarlotti <Scar...@searchhawkmail.com> commented:
||
||| In short: the "r'n'r revolution" was simply the reintegration of
||| frenetic dance rhythms into mainstream pop.
||| --------------------------------snip----------------------------------<
||
|| How do you dance to Johnnie Ray's "Cry"? As far as I'm concerned,
|| you can't. That's another point for it not being a rock 'n' roll
|| song.
You never heard of the waltz?
Bob Roman
> Somewhere around dinnertime tonight the whole thing became crystal
> clear to me...
>
Oh, Mr. Rogan. You should have asked someone. This is a very old topic.
You are here to learn, you say. Don't work so hard to catch up all on your own.
Bob Roman
Wayne Chicago area
can't. That's another point for it not being a rock 'n' roll song.
Marc, We all danced to "Cry" if at the time you were at a hop.That's
what they were called way back when. Whatever was played we danced to.
We also danced to "Beyond the Sea" Bobby Darin...admittedly they wern't
the greatest songs to cut a rug..Sorry my age is showing.:-) The girls
were trying to look cute..the guys were trying to get laid.. That's the
way it was... This will only make sense if you were there..:-)
Regards, Wayne
Intheway1
>You never heard of the waltz?
>
Waltzing to a song written in 4/4 time makes about as much sense as the rest of
the things you post here.
Fred
Scarlotti
I am now drawing a strong line of differentiation between "r'n'r
proper" and a "rock ballad" -- of which CRY is an example of the
latter.
A rock ballad utilizes many of the same stylistic techniques as r'n'r
proper, except that its slow tempo rules out the possibility of
frenzied dance.
A rock ballad may be considered as a sub-genre of r'n'r proper, and as
such falls under the more inclusive head of "r'n'r" (sans "proper).
Hence, CRY (as a "rock ballad") qualifies as an example of a "r'n'r"
song as well.
Scarlotti
> Scar...@searchhawkmail.com (Scarlotti) wrote...
> > Somewhere around dinnertime tonight the whole thing became crystal
> > clear to me...
> >
> > It wasn't first and foremost about DANCING.
>
> Oh, Mr. Rogan. You should have asked someone. This is a very old topic.
Bob, your childish attempt to pretend that Mr. Rogan and myself are
the same individual is getting very tiresome.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2ov42
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ytmbx
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3gzz8
>
> You are here to learn, you say. Don't work so hard to catch up all on your own.
>
> Bob Roman
The threads you reference touch on the fringes of my point, but are
hardly the same thing.
I could just as easily refer you to my infamous post #70 in the "Rocks
birth?" thread (you know, the post that turned this newsgroup into a
battleground), wherein I wrote:
"While the early r&b artists were certainly an *influence* on r&r, I
think rock clearly developed more out of the pop hits of the late
40s/early 50s than anything else: 'That's My Desire,' 'Cry,' 'You
Belong to Me,' 'Wheel of Fortune,' 'Ricochet,' 'Rag Mop,' etc. (No,
I'm not saying these are r&r -- merely that they're close enough to
demonstrate the evolutionary link: Swing-Pop Standards-Rock.)"
And further note where I expanded upon this point in post #75 of the
same thread:
"As to r&r proper, the progression from the swing bands Benny Goodman,
Artie Shaw, Wood Herman, et al., r&r is a pretty straightforward
route. For anyone who's ever watched 40s films of teens jitterbugging
to swing bands, the similarity to 50s sock hops and American Bandstand
is striking (heck, Bandstand looks/sounds tame in comparison)."
But just like the jazz threads you've cited, these only touch upon the
true core of my point.
What I now realize in full clarity (having only possessed a general
sense of this at the time of the above-cited posts), is this:
The supposed "r'n'r revolution" _might_ be viewed as a "reaction" to
the mainstream popular songs of the late 40s/early 50s -- but only
insofar as they related to _dance_. That is "r'n'r proper" was a
sub-genre of mainstream 50s pop that was created as a form of frenetic
and to a lesser extent sexually suggestive dance music.
Parents who reacted negatively to r'n'r proper were reacting against
the "risque" dances that it promoted. (And the BLACKBOARD JUNGLE
image that Hollywood slapped on r'n'r when first introducing it into
the mainstream culture.) Not necessarily to any qualities inherent in
the music itself.
This further explains why much of the pop music of the rock 'n' roll
era (1955-1964) often sounds little different from much of the pop
music of the early 50s. R'n'r proper never replaced it. Nor did it
even attempt to.
What r'n'r proper did do was to supplement the existing pop music of
the day by providing an inexpensively produced alternative to big band
swing music, which I've no doubt the teenagers of that era missed
_dancing_ to.
In the early 50s, the only big bands still charting (in the
mainstream) were the "sweet" bands -- none of which were the sort one
jitterbugged to. Kids who missed fast, wild dances turned to r&b or
(as the decade progressed) rockabilly (country which integrated r&b
rhythms). Picking up on the growing popularity of country and r&b
songs among teen agers mainstream pop began integrating elements from
these two alternative forms as early as the mid-1940s.
And this is an important point to keep in mind. 50s teens were not
"rebelling" against "their parents' music" at all. Rather, pop music
was progressively growing toward music which incorporated elements
that appealed to 50s teens.
CRY is an early (and hugely successful) example of what would later be
termed a "rock ballad." "R'n'r proper" came about when Bill Haley and
The Comets began playing uptempo, rhythm-oriented _dance_ music
(melding elements of country, r&b and pop).
Dancing to a song like PAPA LOVES MAMBO would now be seen as "square."
This doesn't mean (as "revisionists" continually claim) that Perry
Como's songs were suddenly revealed as "phony," "kitschy," "bland,"
"whitebread" or anything else. It simply meant that the "cool" kids
were no longer doing the more traditional style _dances_ associated
with these type of songs (Mambo, Waltz, Tango, Cha-cha, etc.).
Johnny Mathis' rock era ballads (calling them "rock ballads" would be
a stretch) were every bit as sweet as SECRET LOVE by Doris Day or MONA
LISA by Nat "King" Cole in the early part of the decade. Rock era pop
continued along the lines it had started on back in 1946.
Just as (slow dance) love ballads coexisted with swing (jitterbug)
back in the heyday of the big band era, so "r'n'r proper" (rock 'n'
roll dancing) coexisted with pop ballads (slow dance) throughout the
1950s and early 60s.
The music industry has always promoted its fast dance music (Ragtime,
Charleston, Jitterbug) as being "racy," and the media has always
played up the intergenerational rebellion aspects of it (because that
sort of thing sells, and the entertainment media have always been
marketing tools of their related industries). R'n'r dancing was no
different. The media promoted the "youth run wild" aspects of rock
through films like BLACKBOARD JUNGLE (forever stamping "rock" music
with a commercially attractive "bad-boy" image).
In fact, were it not for BLACKBOARD JUNGLE, I wonder if r'n'r would
have ever been seen/promoted as a "rebellion" or as "morally
dangerous" or as "the devil's music" at all. It's difficult to
imagine that what was essentially a return to the Jitterbug crazes of
the 30s and 40s would raise too many eyebrows among the parents who
took part in them.
The Myth that "r'n'r" was a "revolution" against "your parents' music"
grew out of this sort of marketing in the late 60s (when r'n'r
magazines like ROLLING STONE wanted to do for rock what french film
magazines like CAHIERS DU CINEMA had done for movies). The writers,
many too young to have been cognizant of the industry trends at the
time, had been raised on (and swallowed) the media hype wholesale.
They picked up the on r&b aspects of the developing new form of music,
but read this in a racial (as opposed to dance style) related context
(the Civil Rights Movement was at its height in the late 60s, and
clearly foremost in these budding writers' minds).
RWC
wrote:
>On Jul 9, 2004, Scarlotti <Scar...@searchhawkmail.com> commented:
>
>> In short: the "r'n'r revolution" was simply the reintegration of
>> frenetic dance rhythms into mainstream pop.
>>--------------------------------snip----------------------------------<
>
>How do you dance to Johnnie Ray's "Cry"? As far as I'm concerned, you can't.
> That's another point for it not being a rock 'n' roll song.
>
:-))) That's exactly what I thought when Mike said the other day:
"[Pop: ] A form of dramatic music to
be listened to ....
was replaced with a form of dance music."
Nevertheless, I do believe JR sang in an 'Elvis' rock and roll ballad
style in the early 50s. I have all of JRs Cashbox charted singles
(except "Faith...") and one of these is more r'n'r than CRY - since it
doesn't have that anti r'n'r instrumentation - LOVE ME; this reached
#40 on the Cashbox lists in 1952.
However, it's misleading to describe JR as a rock and roll singer
without qualification, because I think the neophyte reader then
expects his *records* (ie the overall sound of) to be rock and roll
and they are not, because of one or more of instrumentation,
arrangement, lyrics (etc?).
BTW, only Elvis has been mentioned here recently as someone who sang
rock and roll *ballads* - but let's not forget Gene Vincent (WEDDING
BELLS - '56), Eddie Cochran (DON'T EVER LET ME GO - ' 58), and Chuck
Berry (MERRY CHRISTMAS BABY - ' 58).
JR did enter the pop-rock category (a la Ricky Nelson) in '57 with
PINK SWEATER ANGEL and MISS ME JUST A LITTLE. However, I distinguish
between 'rock and roll' and 'pop rock' (softer) and of course the few
'rock pop' records of Kay Starr, Perry Como et al. As mainstream
(charting) music I perceive that most r'n'r appeared between 1955 and
1958. Rock and roll, as I define it, continued into the early sixties
with relatively simple sounding rockabilly evolving into the 'noisier'
and harder (and mostly obscure) garage rock.
From 1945 to 1954 we had mid/up tempo Black R&B dance music for teens,
but for me they are too stolid for a rock and roll classification. In
the same period, up tempo country music is not rock and roll either;
however, I can identify some "hillbilly swing" records which I *would*
classify as r'n'r - for instance 'Rocket 88" by Bill Haley.
A 3MB stereo mp3 file of Haley's Rocket 88 has recently been posted,
kindly, by Power-Poster; however a modest 970K mono mp3 file I have,
probably from the legendary Spade, is a bit cleaner, brighter, more to
the fore, with better separation between instrument and vocal sounds,
thus, importantly, better promoting this exciting record. The quality
of an mp3, in subtle ways (like brightness as opposed to distortion)
can significantly affect the appreciating of a record one hasn't heard
before - with this in mind it's a shame about the technical quality of
some doo wop postings (doo wop can be entrancing, but you might not
see it in a particular record because ...) - yes, better something
than nothing, and thanks to everyone who posts to the binary groups).
Geoff
Marc Wielage
> "While the early r&b artists were certainly an *influence* on r&r, I
> think rock clearly developed more out of the pop hits of the late
> 40s/early 50s than anything else: 'That's My Desire,' 'Cry,' 'You
> Belong to Me,' 'Wheel of Fortune,' 'Ricochet,' 'Rag Mop,' etc. (No,
> I'm not saying these are r&r -- merely that they're close enough to
> demonstrate the evolutionary link: Swing-Pop Standards-Rock.)"
>--------------------------------snip----------------------------------<
I don't agree. I think 1950s r'n'r came out of mostly R&B, along with some
Country and some Pop. You could say the rhythm and the attitude came out of
R&B, the electric guitars came out of Country and rockabilly, and maybe some
of the production techniques came from Pop, but there was a ton of
cross-pollination going on.
I have no problem with 1940s jazz being a precursor to everything that
followed, but related only in that it was all Pop music. It didn't
necessarily all happen in a smooth straight line; rock music developed over
time, in jerks and spurts, not as a slow progression. You can make a good
argument that r'n'r was temporarily stifled by Elvis' induction into the army
in early 1958, and it took a few years for it to recover. But the British
Invasion changed everything, arguably just as profoundly as what Elvis had
done in 1956.
> Parents who reacted negatively to r'n'r proper were reacting against
> the "risque" dances that it promoted. (And the BLACKBOARD JUNGLE
> image that Hollywood slapped on r'n'r when first introducing it into
> the mainstream culture.) Not necessarily to any qualities inherent in
> the music itself.
>--------------------------------snip----------------------------------<
I'd say that was part of it. I worked a little on the 1979 HEROES OF ROCK &
ROLL TV special for ABC (and Solt-Leo Productions), and I remember some
hysterically-funny 1950s documentary footage that interviewed angry parents
screaming about the dances. But I think the risque lyrics, the pounding
rhythm, and the gymnastics of performers like Elvis and Jerry Lee Lewis had
parents fairly freaked out.
> And this is an important point to keep in mind. 50s teens were not
> "rebelling" against "their parents' music" at all. Rather, pop music
> was progressively growing toward music which incorporated elements
> that appealed to 50s teens.
>--------------------------------snip----------------------------------<
It's a little of both. SOME of it was teenagers rebelling, but they've
always rebelled. There were 1940s parents that rolled their eyes at Sinatra,
in his "Voice" days. But the music was also about the artists rebelling
against what came before, and wanting to do something different. Hell, even
Rap has been like that in the 1980s and 1990s -- another statement of
rebellion. (That doesn't make it good, but it shows that this rebellious
nature still goes on.)
> The Myth that "r'n'r" was a "revolution" against "your parents' music"
> grew out of this sort of marketing in the late 60s (when r'n'r
> magazines like ROLLING STONE wanted to do for rock what french film
> magazines like CAHIERS DU CINEMA had done for movies).
>--------------------------------snip----------------------------------<
Go to your public library and pull issues of LIFE MAGAZINE and TIME MAGAZINE
from the 1950s. Even THEY were promoting this so-called "myth" about rock
'n' roll being a revolution, and being a rebellion. This goes back to long
before ROLLING STONE magazine was around. Do the research!
It's not a myth at all -- a lot of this really happened. Sure, some of it's
been exaggerated over the years, but I *remember* people criticizing rock
music when I was a little kid in the 1960s, and I know for a fact they said
it about a lot of 1950s rock 'n' roll, too. Granted, what I saw was just a
microcosm of the country, but you're wrong to believe for a fact that the
entire thing was a myth, totally generated from BLACKBOARD JUNGLE. (Don't
forget REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE, Brando in THE WILD ONE, and all kinds of movies
of that era.)
You also forget the riots at Alan Freed's early rock & roll shows, going back
to 1952! The atmosphere of danger and rebellion had been going on around
r'n'r for quite some time, both before and after BLACKBOARD JUNGLE. By no
means was that movie the only cause for what happened; it was just one of
many factors. And the revolution wasn't a myth; it turned the music business
upside down, changed the face of radio, created a billion-dollar market in
less than ten years, and had a drastic effect on pop culture.
Last quick comment: my father, when he was alive, used to rue the fact that
the music of his teenage years, Big Band Jazz, had a relatively-short
lifespan of popularity -- maybe ten years or so, at best. He told me several
times that he was convinced when r'n'r came out in the 1950s, it would
probably fade away after five or ten years and something else would come in
to take its place. He was absolutely baffled that rock is still the dominant
popular music format, 50 years after it started. I think he was more than a
little irritated that music like that made obsolete the kind of Pop and Jazz
music he preferred in the 1950s -- and yet even he did like some rock music
over the years. Just not a lot.
Bob Roman
> robert...@hotmail.com (Bob Roman) wrote...
> > Oh, Mr. Rogan. You should have asked someone. This is a very old topic.
>
> Bob, your childish attempt to pretend that Mr. Rogan and myself are
> the same individual is getting very tiresome.
Which Mr. Rogan? For all I know, Charles J. Rogan may be another of
your sock-puppet identities, as Harry Carlisle and "CharlieJack" were.
Or he may be an independently existing nephew or cousin who you
invited in because he happens to share your odd Laine/Ray fetish. It
doesn't matter. Your real name is Michael Rogan, is it not?
Bob Roman
Scarlotti
> On Jul 10, 2004, Scarlotti <Scar...@searchhawkmail.com> commented:
>
> > "While the early r&b artists were certainly an *influence* on r&r, I
> > think rock clearly developed more out of the pop hits of the late
> > 40s/early 50s than anything else: 'That's My Desire,' 'Cry,' 'You
> > Belong to Me,' 'Wheel of Fortune,' 'Ricochet,' 'Rag Mop,' etc. (No,
> > I'm not saying these are r&r -- merely that they're close enough to
> > demonstrate the evolutionary link: Swing-Pop Standards-Rock.)"
> >--------------------------------snip----------------------------------<
>
> I don't agree. I think 1950s r'n'r came out of mostly R&B, along with some
> Country and some Pop.
I agree that there was cross-pollination. Jazz/r&b (it's my
understanding that the term "r&b" included jazz in those days) had a
profound influence upon many of the leading (pop) artists of this
period, and its influences can be readily heard in the records cited
above.
> You could say the rhythm and the attitude came out of
> R&B, the electric guitars came out of Country and rockabilly, and maybe some
> of the production techniques came from Pop, but there was a ton of
> cross-pollination going on.
I would say that the guitars came from Les Paul, who was topping the
charts in the early 50s. Country artists picked up on them as well,
and there was a lot of back and forth interplay -- but Paul was the
inventor of the (solid body) electric guitar.
But you need to remember that the above passage was quoted from a
November 2001 post. As stated in the opening post of this thread, I
now see the picture somewhat differently. Today I would argue that
most of the above-listed songs were similar to what would later be
termed "rock ballads," not "r'n'r proper." However, the introduction
of electric guitars, rhythm-oriented arrangements and country styles
into mainstream pop at this time (in the more uptempo songs like
RICOCHET) was leading in the direction of "r'n'r proper."
> I have no problem with 1940s jazz being a precursor to everything that
> followed, but related only in that it was all Pop music. It didn't
> necessarily all happen in a smooth straight line; rock music developed over
> time, in jerks and spurts, not as a slow progression. You can make a good
> argument that r'n'r was temporarily stifled by Elvis' induction into the army
> in early 1958, and it took a few years for it to recover. But the British
> Invasion changed everything, arguably just as profoundly as what Elvis had
> done in 1956.
Sorry if my timeline makes it sound too smooth -- but a list of the
"hard-edged" pop songs from 1946-1955 does show a fairly straight
progression in the r'n'r direction. I've no doubt that there was a
lot of give and take with both r&b and country -- with r&b and country
artists even turning up on the charts (briefly) now and then.
One problem which several members here have against my approach to the
development of mainstream popular music (which I consider r'n'r to be)
is that I limit myself to addressing it from a mainstream-centric
point of view. That is, I am only interested in the songs that
_directly_ affected the mainstream music of the decade in its
development towards r'n'r.
While r&b artists like Wynonie Harris (who I'd never heard of prior to
his having been mentioned in response to one of my posts) might have
influenced other artists -- some of whom were mainstream artist, his
influence on mainstream music is secondary at best.
Mainstream teens wanted a dance music of a similar nature to the swing
music of the 40s -- but most of them wanted something a little more
refined than r&b. They wanted a form of fast-paced, rhythm-centered
dance music that sounded more mainstream. Which is why Elvis, not
Chuck Berry, was the first r'n'r superstar. That's why Pat Boone's
more traditional-styled covers were such big hits.
That is, Berry's contributions only become of interest _after_ he has
become a part of mainstream culture. Prior to that time, whatever he
did is only of value insofar as it influenced early mainstream rockers
like Presley and Boone.
> > Parents who reacted negatively to r'n'r proper were reacting against
> > the "risque" dances that it promoted. (And the BLACKBOARD JUNGLE
> > image that Hollywood slapped on r'n'r when first introducing it into
> > the mainstream culture.) Not necessarily to any qualities inherent in
> > the music itself.
> >--------------------------------snip----------------------------------<
>
> I'd say that was part of it. I worked a little on the 1979 HEROES OF ROCK &
> ROLL TV special for ABC (and Solt-Leo Productions), and I remember some
> hysterically-funny 1950s documentary footage that interviewed angry parents
> screaming about the dances. But I think the risque lyrics, the pounding
> rhythm, and the gymnastics of performers like Elvis and Jerry Lee Lewis had
> parents fairly freaked out.
My first question is how reliable are the "documentary" clips? They
were still making REEFER MADNESS style "documentaries"/"true life
stories" then, as I recall.
My second question is how much were these irate parents reacting to
the media hype/juvenile delinquent image presented in BLACKBOARD
JUNGLE?
> > And this is an important point to keep in mind. 50s teens were not
> > "rebelling" against "their parents' music" at all. Rather, pop music
> > was progressively growing toward music which incorporated elements
> > that appealed to 50s teens.
> >--------------------------------snip----------------------------------<
>
> It's a little of both. SOME of it was teenagers rebelling, but they've
> always rebelled. There were 1940s parents that rolled their eyes at Sinatra,
> in his "Voice" days. But the music was also about the artists rebelling
> against what came before, and wanting to do something different. Hell, even
> Rap has been like that in the 1980s and 1990s -- another statement of
> rebellion. (That doesn't make it good, but it shows that this rebellious
> nature still goes on.)
Agreed. (I've posted a similar argument several times in the past.)
The issue isn't so much that 1955 teens rolled their eyes at 30-year
old singers, but that many people today still believe that this
instance of teen rebellion was artistically merited. I mean every
generation has always had its own music which helped define it (and
which was to some extent a "rebellion" against their parents' music),
but no one today goes around trashing swing, jazz or ragtime.
This too, is the Myth at work.
> > The Myth that "r'n'r" was a "revolution" against "your parents' music"
> > grew out of this sort of marketing in the late 60s (when r'n'r
> > magazines like ROLLING STONE wanted to do for rock what french film
> > magazines like CAHIERS DU CINEMA had done for movies).
> >--------------------------------snip----------------------------------<
>
> Go to your public library and pull issues of LIFE MAGAZINE and TIME MAGAZINE
> from the 1950s. Even THEY were promoting this so-called "myth" about rock
> 'n' roll being a revolution, and being a rebellion. This goes back to long
> before ROLLING STONE magazine was around. Do the research!
The media calls everything it's pushing a "revolution." "A revolution
in baking!" "A revolution in aerodynamic design!" "A revolution in
(fill in the blank)!"
They key word in your statement is "promoting." They were "promoting"
what would later become the Myth (a marketing ploy) via the media.
You see, the stuff that happened in the 1950s is entirely beside the
point. The Myth has nothing to do with the 1950s. Rock was new.
Rock was "wild." Rock was bad. Yaddayaddayadda.
The Myth picks up on this -- but it is something entirely _different_.
The basic tenets of the Myth include:
1) Before Elvis all mainstream music was bland, boring, whitebread
tripe, not worth listening to.
2) While Elvis was the King of R'n'R, he didn't invent it.
3) Rock 'n' Roll was really another name for R&B music which black
artists (the real inventors of r'n'r) had been playing since sometime
in the 1940s.
4) D.J. Alan Freed was the first man to apply the phrase "rock 'n'
roll" to music.
5) Early black rockers weren't popular at the time because white pop
singers made "watered down cover versions" of their songs -- which
proved more popular with white audiences for the first few years.
The Myth makes many other claims, but they are of little interest to
me.
> It's not a myth at all -- a lot of this really happened. Sure, some of it's
> been exaggerated over the years, but I *remember* people criticizing rock
> music when I was a little kid in the 1960s, and I know for a fact they said
> it about a lot of 1950s rock 'n' roll, too.
Yeah, and my parents criticized it in the 1960s too. And so did I --
often more vocally than they did. But so what?
A dislike of r'n'r does not translate to "early 50s pop was boring."
> Granted, what I saw was just a
> microcosm of the country, but you're wrong to believe for a fact that the
> entire thing was a myth, totally generated from BLACKBOARD JUNGLE. (Don't
> forget REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE, Brando in THE WILD ONE, and all kinds of movies
> of that era.)
Did I say "totally"? THE WILD ONE predated r'n'r. Brando's character
listened to jump or something (I haven't seen the film in a quarter of
a century). REBEL W/O A CAUSE also predated r'n'r (in that it was
shot before BLACKBOARD JUNGLE. I don't recall anyone listening to
r'n'r in that one either. R'n'r quickly appropriated the Dean/Brando
rebel image -- but BLACKBOARD JUNGLE was the film that started the
r'n'r era.
> You also forget the riots at Alan Freed's early rock & roll shows, going back
> to 1952!
Alan who?
Alan Freed's role in the birth/popularization of r'n'r has been
greatly exaggerated -- as has his popularity at the time. He may have
played r&b records in 1952, but he wasn't playing r'n'r -- as r'n'r
did not as yet exist.
The willful mistaking of r&b for r'n'r is another big part of the
Myth.
> The atmosphere of danger and rebellion had been going on around
> r'n'r for quite some time, both before and after BLACKBOARD JUNGLE. By no
> means was that movie the only cause for what happened; it was just one of
> many factors. And the revolution wasn't a myth; it turned the music business
> upside down, changed the face of radio, created a billion-dollar market in
> less than ten years, and had a drastic effect on pop culture.
Hold on a sec! Did r'n'r turn the music business upside down, or
(more likely) was r'n'r a well-marketed music industry creation?
IMO the music industry noted that Eisenhower era teens suddenly had a
good deal of disposable cash and exploited this to the maximum by
marketing their music to teens (using teen singers, teen oriented
lyrics, and loud, in your face, music).
> Last quick comment: my father, when he was alive, used to rue the fact that
> the music of his teenage years, Big Band Jazz, had a relatively-short
> lifespan of popularity -- maybe ten years or so, at best. He told me several
> times that he was convinced when r'n'r came out in the 1950s, it would
> probably fade away after five or ten years and something else would come in
> to take its place. He was absolutely baffled that rock is still the dominant
> popular music format, 50 years after it started. I think he was more than a
> little irritated that music like that made obsolete the kind of Pop and Jazz
> music he preferred in the 1950s -- and yet even he did like some rock music
> over the years. Just not a lot.
I disagree on several points. Jazz started in the 20s, big band in
the 30s and pop (pre-rock era) in the 40s. Since these are the 3
forms of music you mention your father having liked, I'd say that "his
kind of music" had a 30-plus year life span. And rock (r'n'r proper)
hasn't been around for 50 years. That's another part of the Myth.
R'n'r proper lasted less than 10 years (more like 2 or 3). The only
"rock" that been around that long (ignoring Gibraltar) is the term --
which has been indiscriminately applied to every new type of music
coming down the pike.
Who do you hear singing rock today? Britney? Justin? Eminem?
Scarlotti
"Rogan"... is that so? And here I've been laboring under the false
impression that I was a SICILIAN for 40 years!
Bob Roman
>
> "Rogan"... is that so? And here I've been laboring under the false
> impression that I was a SICILIAN for 40 years!
Jakers, lad! What does the one thing have to do with the other?
Bob Roman
Steve Carras
That's fine by me, I'm GREEK!!
Scarlotti
"Rogan" doesn't end in a vowel.
Bob Roman
>
I believe this is known as a "non-denial denial."
Bob Roman
Scarlotti
Sounds more like plain old-fashioned common sense to me.
You know, "Bob" -- "Roman" and "Rogan" differ by only ONE LETTER! One
could argue that "Charles Rogan" is a pseudonym of yours -- only I
sincerely doubt that you possess the necessary intellect to devise a
post of Mr. Rogan's caliber. (No offense intended, of course.)
Bob Roman
Good point. Maybe I should start calling myself Pendramon.
Or if I get a wart on my face I can call myself Wartlotti.
> only I
> sincerely doubt that you possess the necessary intellect to devise a
> post of Mr. Rogan's caliber.
I don't need intellect. I'm not an Ayn Rand-ian. If I ever discover
I'm not as smart as I think I am, my world won't fall apart. That's
why I live at ease and enjoy rock & soul, and you live in fear and
cling to uptight music.
Bob Roman
Scarlotti
> > robert...@hotmail.com (Bob Roman) wrote...
> > You know, "Bob" -- "Roman" and "Rogan" differ by only ONE LETTER!
>
> Good point. Maybe I should start calling myself Pendramon.
>
> Or if I get a wart on my face I can call myself Wartlotti.
>
> > only I
> > sincerely doubt that you possess the necessary intellect to devise a
> > post of Mr. Rogan's caliber.
>
> I don't need intellect.
Glad to hear it! (No point in moping around after something that
cannot be acquired. See that, you're not half so stupid as you
think.)
> I'm not an Ayn Rand-ian.
And seeing how you _couldn't_ be, I'll deem that a good thing as well.
> If I ever discover I'm not as smart as I think I am, my world won't fall
> apart.
Don't worry, Bob, I doubt that such a thing could ever happen.
> That's why I live at ease and enjoy rock & soul, and you live in fear and
> cling to uptight music.
When it comes to being "uptight," I'd say that someone like yourself
who's committed my 2500 posts to memory would be a likely candidate.
(Can you say "K-Mart underwear"?)
And, Bob... assuming that music _could_ be "uptight," I doubt that I,
or anyone else, would listen to it.
Bob Roman
> > cling to uptight music.
>
> When it comes to being "uptight," I'd say that someone like yourself
> who's committed my 2500 posts to memory would be a likely candidate.
> (Can you say "K-Mart underwear"?)
>
> And, Bob... assuming that music _could_ be "uptight," I doubt that I,
> or anyone else, would listen to it.
Michael, your anger is palpable. I can practically see your eye
twitching.
Don't worry, I don't have all your posts committed to memory. Just
the lies. The others -- your opinions and insults -- are instantly
forgettable.
Bob Roman
Scarlotti
> Michael, your anger is palpable. I can practically see your eye
> twitching.
To indulge in a rather cliched expression -- Man, you just don't it!
Just because _you_ wince in pain when I pull on your handi-grip
schnozz, doesn't mean that _I'm_ sharing in your feelings of
discomfort. You're like my own private "Mr. Bill" -- only I guess in
your case it's a "Mr. Bob."
You never _got_ The Marx Brothers either, did you?
> Don't worry, I don't have all your posts committed to memory. Just
> the lies. The others -- your opinions and insults -- are instantly
> forgettable.
Now _that_ is an example of palpable anger!
Trust me, junior; you need to put on some nice, soft early 50s pop --
some Nat Cole or Perry Como albums -- and mellow your hyper little
p.c. self out.
xpen...@earthlink.net
(Scarlotti) wrote:
>robert...@hotmail.com (Bob Roman) wrote in message news:<288f4c2c.0407...@posting.google.com>...
>
>> Michael, your anger is palpable. I can practically see your eye
>> twitching.
>
>To indulge in a rather cliched expression -- Man, you just don't it!
Never heard that expression before.
Scarlotti
Don't around much, do you? ;)
Bob Roman
> > twitching.
>
> To indulge in a rather cliched expression -- Man, you just don't it!
You're so pissed off you're dropping words.
> > Don't worry, I don't have all your posts committed to memory. Just
> > the lies. The others -- your opinions and insults -- are instantly
> > forgettable.
>
> Now _that_ is an example of palpable anger!
That's what is know as projection.
Just how much bourbon did it take you to calm down enough to get to
sleep last night? If I'm causing you health problems, I will
definitely stop.
Bob Roman
Scarlotti
> > To indulge in a rather cliched expression -- Man, you just don't it!
>
> You're so pissed off you're dropping words.
Speak for yourself -- you're dropping letters (below).
But seriously, you flatter yourself, W-A-Y too much. I know, I know
... you obsessive types have a burning need to feel that you've
"touched" the objects of your fetish in some symbolic or emotional
manner, but the sad truth is that I grown to think of you as so much
surface noise (an inescapable part of posting here that one simply
resigns himself to and makes the best of).
> > > Don't worry, I don't have all your posts committed to memory. Just
> > > the lies. The others -- your opinions and insults -- are instantly
> > > forgettable.
> >
> > Now _that_ is an example of palpable anger!
>
> That's what is know as projection.
Bob, Bob, Bob (shakes head)... you're such an old woman. (You're also
repeating yourself.)
I can't even work up the enthusiasm to laugh at you anymore, much less
to get angry at you.
This whole string reminds me of one of my favorite moments in
CASABLANCA.
"You despise me, don't you?" Ugarte (read "Bob Roman") rhetorically
asks Rick (read "Michael Scarlotti").
To which Rick (Scarlotti) replies: "Oh if I ever gave you any thought,
I probably would."
> Just how much bourbon did it take you to calm down enough to get to
> sleep last night? If I'm causing you health problems, I will
> definitely stop.
ROTFLOMA.
Such vanity.
Bob Roman
> But seriously, you flatter yourself, W-A-Y too much. I know, I know
> ... you obsessive types have a burning need to feel that you've
> "touched" the objects of your fetish in some symbolic or emotional
> manner, but the sad truth is that I grown to think of you as so much
> surface noise (an inescapable part of posting here that one simply
> resigns himself to and makes the best of).
You also fantasize that I'm made of clay so you can do violence to me.
Or so you said.
> > Just how much bourbon did it take you to calm down enough to get to
> > sleep last night? If I'm causing you health problems, I will
> > definitely stop.
>
> ROTFLOMA.
> Such vanity.
OK, I offered. Try to sleep tonight, without sedating yourself. One
thing I used to emphasize to students when I would teach this stuff is
that alcohol induced unconsciousness is not a replacement for sleep.
It does damage to your REM cycle and places your judgment at jeopardy.
Bob Roman
Scarlotti
> > But seriously, you flatter yourself, W-A-Y too much. I know, I know
> > ... you obsessive types have a burning need to feel that you've
> > "touched" the objects of your fetish in some symbolic or emotional
> > manner, but the sad truth is that I grown to think of you as so much
> > surface noise (an inescapable part of posting here that one simply
> > resigns himself to and makes the best of).
>
> You also fantasize that I'm made of clay so you can do violence to me.
> Or so you said.
I don't recall that one. Doesn't sound like something I'd say. Want
to post it (or better yet a link to it)?
> > > Just how much bourbon did it take you to calm down enough to get to
> > > sleep last night? If I'm causing you health problems, I will
> > > definitely stop.
> >
> > ROTFLOMA.
> > Such vanity.
>
> OK, I offered. Try to sleep tonight, without sedating yourself. One
> thing I used to emphasize to students when I would teach this stuff is
> that alcohol induced unconsciousness is not a replacement for sleep.
> It does damage to your REM cycle and places your judgment at jeopardy.
I don't drink every night, Bob.
In fact, I haven't been drinking much all summer (gotta keep my
waistline trim for the beaches).
I drink only moderate amounts and never to point where I would be
considered intoxicated. It usually takes me between 5 days and 1 week
to go through a bottle. That averages out to approx. 3-4 shots a
night (over a good 5 hour period).
Sorry if that destroys your "bad boy" image of me. I don't smoke
either. Or use drugs. Or even eat meat. I'm pretty d__n tame these
days (see that -- I'm even censoring most of my posts).
I'm turning into a middle-aged Wally Cleaver.
Bob Roman
> I drink only moderate amounts and never to point where I would be
> considered intoxicated. It usually takes me between 5 days and 1 week
> to go through a bottle. That averages out to approx. 3-4 shots a
> night (over a good 5 hour period).
>
> Sorry if that destroys your "bad boy" image of me.
Three to four shots a night of hard liquor is not "bad boy" behavior.
It's addiction. Congratulations on cutting back, but I hate to think
how much you were drinking before you cut back.
I don't know how much of what you write is putting us on. I hope for
your sake that most of it is. But it's obvious in any case that you
live with pain. The simple fact that you go to religion discussion
groups, call yourself Jesus Christ, and say things intending to offend
the religious, makes me think the scars from your childhood are much
more severe than the scar on your face.
Your attempts to bully in discussion, your absurdly outsized
self-praise on your web page, your obsessions with IQ and magic, your
insomnia and apparent alcoholism, all seem part of the same pathology.
There has always been a disconnect about you, so much so that I again
wonder how much is a put on. You pose here as a conservative
moralist, but your magazine invites work questioning conventional
ideas of right and wrong. You praise Ayn Rand, a philosopher who
rejects tradition and promotes innovation and individualism -- yet you
also praise the most traditional, non-innovative music, and only
consider it worthy of notice if it has been endorsed by the mass
market. You reject non-mainstream genres in music, yet you work in a
non-mainstream field of literature.
I don't know you, of course, but your behavior here and the behavior
you describe of your private life are disturbing. You give every
indication of someone trying to overcome childhood trauma with
delusions of grandeur. And whenever the disconnects in your life
start to reveal themselves, your impulse is either to lash out or to
drink.
I wish you the best -- I honestly do. But I also wish you would take
your recovery elsewhere.
Bob Roman
Scarlotti
Date: 7/18/04 8:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <288f4c2c.0407...@posting.google.com>
Scar...@searchhawkmail.com (Scarlotti) wrote...
> > I drink only moderate amounts and never to point where I would be
> > considered intoxicated. It usually takes me between 5 days and 1 week
> > to go through a bottle. That averages out to approx. 3-4 shots a
> > night (over a good 5 hour period).
>
> > Sorry if that destroys your "bad boy" image of me.
> Three to four shots a night of hard liquor is not "bad boy" behavior.
> It's addiction. Congratulations on cutting back, but I hate to think
> how much you were drinking before you cut back.
Try rereading the last post. What I said was that I'd cut down from
3-4 drinks a night to ZERO.
> I don't know how much of what you write is putting us on. I hope for
> your sake that most of it is. But it's obvious in any case that you
> live with pain. The simple fact that you go to religion discussion
> groups, call yourself Jesus Christ, and say things intending to offend
> the religious, makes me think the scars from your childhood are much
> more severe than the scar on your face.
Quite a jump you're making there, Bob.
I had a little sport with a few religious fanatics, therefore I must
have had a traumatic childhood? Okay.
> Your attempts to bully in discussion, your absurdly outsized
> self-praise on your web page, your obsessions with IQ and magic, your
> insomnia and apparent alcoholism, all seem part of the same pathology.
I'm sorry, Bob -- does my being a multi-faceted genius bother you?
> There has always been a disconnect about you, so much so that I again
> wonder how much is a put on. You pose here as a conservative
> moralist, but your magazine invites work questioning conventional
> ideas of right and wrong.
Perhaps you'd like to purchase a copy of my magazine? I could send
you a copy of my multi-author collection, THE BIBLE OF HELL, for a
mere $25.00.
> You praise Ayn Rand, a philosopher who
> rejects tradition and promotes innovation and individualism -- yet you
> also praise the most traditional, non-innovative music, and only
> consider it worthy of notice if it has been endorsed by the mass
> market. You reject non-mainstream genres in music, yet you work in a
> non-mainstream field of literature.
What can I say? I'm the proverbial enigma wrapped in a riddle.
(Hmm... seems fitting for an Ayn Randian individualist. Maybe I'm not
so big a riddle after all.)
And if you knew anything about the music of the early 50s, you'd
realize how it's quite possibly the most innovative musical era of
them all.
> I don't know you, of course, but your behavior here and the behavior
> you describe of your private life are disturbing. You give every
> indication of someone trying to overcome childhood trauma with
> delusions of grandeur. And whenever the disconnects in your life
> start to reveal themselves, your impulse is either to lash out or to
> drink.
Don't give up your day-job.
And trust me, Junior -- I'm not bullying you. You need to learn how
to take a friendly poke in the ribs with a little dignity.
Perhaps you're the one who's having trouble getting over some old
schoolboy trauma? Not that I've any interest in pursuing the matter.
> I wish you the best -- I honestly do. But I also wish you would take
> your recovery elsewhere.
Sorry Bob. But like Allan Sherman's mother-in-law, I'm here to stay.
Deal with it.
SavoyBG
>I had a little sport with a few religious fanatics, therefore I must
>have had a traumatic childhood? Okay.
>What can I say? I'm the proverbial enigma wrapped in a riddle.
Bob and Fred have one thing in common, they both seem to think that they can
analyze a person that they've never even met by what they post in a usenet
group.
Several months ago Bob was positive that you were Dennis....or was it that
Dennis was you.....I think he even thought that I was you......I think Fred
still thinks that.
MY LISTS - http://hometown.aol.com/savoybg/myhomepage/index.html
SURVEYS - http://hometown.aol.com/savoybg1/myhomepage/index.html
Intheway1
>analyze a person that they've never even met by what they post in a usenet
>group.
Pot, kettle.
This from our resident Kreskin who persists in telling people what they're
thinking.
Fred
Bob Roman
> Several months ago Bob was positive that you were Dennis....or was it that
> Dennis was you.....I think he even thought that I was you......I think Fred
> still thinks that.
It was the baseball guys who though Dennis was Bruce. So you were close.
Bob Roman
Roger Ford
wrote:
I personally think I'm the only other "real" person here.
EVERYONE ELSE is Bruce!!!
And before any clever dick pipes up and says "ah yes but hang on a
mo.....you actually MET a dozen people from here at various times,in
the flesh!" the answer is quite simple.
Bruce is a clever guy.
He does it all with mirrors.
ROGER FORD
-----------------------
"Spam Free Zone" - to combat unwanted automatic spamming I have added
an extra "b" in my e-mail address (mari...@bblueyonder.co.uk).
Please delete same before responding.Thank you!
Mark Dintenfass
<mari...@bblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> On 19 Jul 2004 05:10:37 -0700, robert...@hotmail.com (Bob Roman)
> wrote:
>
> >sav...@aol.com (SavoyBG) wrote...
> >> Several months ago Bob was positive that you were Dennis....or was it that
> >> Dennis was you.....I think he even thought that I was you......I think Fred
> >> still thinks that.
> >
> >It was the baseball guys who though Dennis was Bruce. So you were close.
> >
> I personally think I'm the only other "real" person here.
>
> EVERYONE ELSE is Bruce!!!
>
> And before any clever dick pipes up and says "ah yes but hang on a
> mo.....you actually MET a dozen people from here at various times,in
> the flesh!" the answer is quite simple.
>
> Bruce is a clever guy.
>
> He does it all with mirrors.
Funhouse mirrors, I guess.
--
--md
_________
Remove xx's from address to reply
Intheway1
>
Read the words at the bottom:
"Objects in this mirror are larger in their own minds than they appear."
Mark Dintenfass
Bob Roman
> From: robert...@hotmail.com (Bob Roman)>
> > it's obvious in any case that you
> > live with pain. The simple fact that you go to religion discussion
> > groups, call yourself Jesus Christ, and say things intending to offend
> > the religious, makes me think the scars from your childhood are much
> > more severe than the scar on your face.
>
> Quite a jump you're making there, Bob.
> I had a little sport with a few religious fanatics, therefore I must
> have had a traumatic childhood? Okay.
Which "religious fanatic" first inspired such hostility in you? Was
it your father, or your mother?
> > Your attempts to bully in discussion, your absurdly outsized
> > self-praise on your web page, your obsessions with IQ and magic, your
> > insomnia and apparent alcoholism, all seem part of the same pathology.
>
> I'm sorry, Bob -- does my being a multi-faceted genius bother you?
You may find that a more tenable self-myth will prove more stable, and
ultimately serve its function better.
Bob Roman
Scarlotti
> Which "religious fanatic" first inspired such hostility in you? Was
> it your father, or your mother?
Wrong tree, Fido.
Had I any hostility toward religion, I would never have converted to
Judaism.
The religious posts you're referring to consisted of excerpts from a
story of mine that was posted at the Terror Tales website -- and a
link.
The story was written for a multi-authored collection (published by
Terror Tales, not by me) entitled WHO KILLED THE EASTER BUNNY?
The stories included in it were required to have an anti-Easter theme,
and as you can surmise from the title, black/outrageous humor was a
major element.
My entry was an irreverent rewrite of the Gospels, done in the Ken
Burns manner of reading letters from the participants and such.
It went over quite well at the site.
Anyway, when I posted the links over at the religious site, I got
several responses vociferously damning me in no uncertain terms. I
posted these on both my own message board and the main message board
-- where they also went over pretty big.
It drummed up a little publicity for both my story and the collection.
The story also got me my own personal web-stalker -- who would email
me what I suspect were viruses from fake addresses for the next 6
months, then come on my author board with a triumphal message of doom.
Luckily I was able to recognize his emails immediately and delete
them with no harm done.
Jolly good fun.
> > > Your attempts to bully in discussion, your absurdly outsized
> > > self-praise on your web page, your obsessions with IQ and magic, your
> > > insomnia and apparent alcoholism, all seem part of the same pathology.
> >
> > I'm sorry, Bob -- does my being a multi-faceted genius bother you?
>
> You may find that a more tenable self-myth will prove more stable, and
> ultimately serve its function better.
Yeah right! A super-genius like myself is going to take advice from
IQ-challenged individual like you!
RWC
<mari...@bblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>I personally think I'm the only other "real" person here.
>
>EVERYONE ELSE is Bruce!!!
>
Welcome you pommey bastard to God's own Newsgroup.
Can we call you Bruce to avoid confusion.
Monty
Bob Roman
> > it your father, or your mother?
>
> Judaism.
I hope you did so because Judaism is a beautiful, ancient tradition
with a rich philosophical foundation that can soothe your troubled
psyche. I hope you did not do so just because whoever put the snakes
in your head was a viscious anti-semite.
> The religious posts you're referring to consisted of excerpts from a
> story of mine that was posted at the Terror Tales website -- and a
> link.
In the first three posts I saw you called Jesus a "motherfucker," you
wrote of him being masturbated by his disciples, and refered to the
"crucifiction." If that is an example of your professional writing,
it is pretty ham-fisted.
For you to post that to a forum where Christians are gathering is the
equivalent of a crank phone call. When you wrote these things, you
were a man approaching 40, not a teenager.
Your pain is transparent to everyone but you.
> Yeah right! A super-genius like myself is going to take advice from
> IQ-challenged individual like you!
You are lashing out again.
Unfortunately for you, in discusion with me, your faith in IQ tests
cannot serve as an emotional salve. The fact that I have 8 points on
the score you claimed should convince you the tests are bunk.
Bob Roman
Roger Ford
Well, of course, this is just the sort of blinkered philistine
pig-ignorance I've come to expect from you non-creative garbage.
You sit there on your loathsome spotty behind squeezing blackheads,
not caring a tinker's cuss for the struggling artist. You excrement,
you whining hypocritical toady with your colour TV set and your Tony
Jacklin golf clubs and your bleeding masonic secret handshakes.
You wouldn't let me join, would you, you blackballing bastard.
Well I wouldn't become a Freemason now if you went down on your lousy
stinking knees and begged me!!.
Len Blanks
> On 20 Jul 2004 09:33:07 -0500, RWC <Lets...@opbox.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 12:45:54 GMT, Roger Ford
>> <mari...@bblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> I personally think I'm the only other "real" person here.
>>>
>>> EVERYONE ELSE is Bruce!!!
>>>
>>
>> Welcome you pommey bastard to God's own Newsgroup.
>>
>> Can we call you Bruce to avoid confusion.
>>
> Well, of course, this is just the sort of blinkered philistine
> pig-ignorance I've come to expect from you non-creative garbage.
> You sit there on your loathsome spotty behind squeezing blackheads,
> not caring a tinker's cuss for the struggling artist. You excrement,
> you whining hypocritical toady with your colour TV set and your Tony
> Jacklin golf clubs and your bleeding masonic secret handshakes.
> You wouldn't let me join, would you, you blackballing bastard.
> Well I wouldn't become a Freemason now if you went down on your
> lousy stinking knees and begged me!!.
The BBC would like to apologise for the quality of writing in that
sketch. It is not BBC policy to get easy laughs with words like "bum",
"bottom", "bastard", or "wee-wees".
The BBC would also like to apologise to the Freemasons for the
character of Bruce. He was not meant to represent Freemasonry as
such. Similarly, the reference to Tony Jacklin the astronaut was
the product of a disordered mind, and should not be construed to
any other significance.
--
Len
Kittens: self-propelled barbed wire in a dewy-eyed mohair sweater.
-- Charlie Stross